I agree with rejecting AI submissions.
Codefling has always placed importance on our creators truly owning, and fully understanding, their work.
This stance initially emerged due to how easy it is to take snippets of other people's work without permission but it should apply just the same, in my opinion, to 'AI' generated work.
Understanding exactly how a work was created and how it works is essential when it comes to maintaining that work and troubleshooting potential issues with it.
We've had exceptions in the past where we allowed submission of 'bought and paid for' works on the condition that any required maintenance would be handled by the original developer,
essentially allowing 'the creator' to be a support middle-man.
I think I'm correct in saying it doesn't work and we don't allow it anymore.
Where paid assets are concerned it's a competitive environment.
There are many ways to maintain an edge and be successful, such as how you handle support requests, how well tested your code is,
how quickly you respond to wipe issues, your personality, etc,
but whether you wrote and/or understand the code should not be in that list.
That should be mandatory.
If someone wants to use AI as a learning or development tool I'm all for it. Whatever works for you...
but if any reviewer has any doubt at all that a submitting creator could recreate any given work 100% from scratch with no assistance,
that work should be declined.